Southern California View From The Right

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

SENATE IMMIGRATION BILL WOULD ALLOW 100 MILLION NEW LEGAL IMMIGRANTS OVER THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS

According to a new report from the Heritage Foundation:

“If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States.”

A Flood of Legal Immigrants

Under CIRA, immigrants could enter the country or attain lawful status within the country through eight channels. In each channel, immigrants would be granted permanent residence and the right to become citizens. The first channel represents immigrants who would have entered under current law; the second channel represents illegal immigrants who are currently in the country and would be given legal permanent residence under the bill. The other six channels represent new inflows of legal immigrants that would occur as a result of the bill. The total number of new legal immigrants over a twenty year period would be as follows: (See Charts 1 and 2.)

1. Visas under current law: Roughly 950,000 persons receive permanent residence visas under current law each year. Over 20 years, the inflow of immigrants through this channel would be 19 million. This represents the status quo under existing law.

2. Amnesty: The bill would grant amnesty to roughly 10 million illegal immigrants. These individuals are currently living in the U.S.; amnesty would allow them to remain legally and to become U.S. citizens.

3. Expanded family chain migration: The number of family-sponsored visas for secondary family members, such as adult brothers and sisters, is currently limited to 480,000 per year minus the number of visas given to immediate family members (spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens). The bill changes the law so that the total quota on secondary family members would be 480,000 without deductions for immediate family members. The net increase in the number of immigrants under this provision would be around 254,000 per year, or 5.1 million over 20 years.[14]

4. Employment-based green cards: The bill would increase the number of employment-based visas from 140,000 to 450,000 per year. For the first time, it would also exempt the spouses and children of workers from the cap. Total annual immigration under this provision is likely to be 450,000 workers plus 540,000 family members annually. The net increase above current law over 20 years would be around 13.5 million persons.[15]

5. The guest worker (H-2C) program: CIRA would allow 325,000 persons to participate in the guest worker program in the first year. This number could rise by 65,000 in the next year and then by 20 percent per year. Assuming 10 percent annual growth in the annual number of guest workers entering the country (well below the bill’s maximum), the total inflow of workers under this program would be 20 million over 20 years.

6. Spouses and children of guest workers: Guest workers could bring their spouses and children to the U.S. as permanent residents; the added number of entrants would be 24 million over 20 years.

7. Spouses and children of illegal immigrants given amnesty: Illegal immigrants who received amnesty could bring their spouses and children into the U.S. as legal permanent residents with the opportunity for full citizenship. The number of spouses and children who would enter the U.S. as a result of amnesty would be at least six million.

8. Parents of naturalized citizens. The bill would substantially increase the number of naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens would have an unlimited right to bring their parents into the U.S. as legal permanent residents. Over twenty years, the number of parents who would enter the U.S. as permanent legal residents as a result of CIRA would be around five million.

“Overall, the bill would allow some 103 million persons to legally immigrate over the next twenty years. This is roughly one-third of the current population of the United States. All of these new entrants would be permanent residents and would have the right to become citizens. This would be a 84 million person net increase over current law.”

READ THE FULL REPORT

(And pass it on to others!)

BUSH'S SPEECH: IGNORING ILLEGAL ALIEN KILLERS, RAPISTS AND ASSORTED THUGS

During President George W. Bush’s televised speech on the issue of illegal immigration, not once did he mention the hordes of criminals entering the United States and preying upon American citizens. How often we hear the news media lamenting the fact that the US incarcerates more and more convicts each year. Want to reduce the incarceration rate? Then reduce criminals to enter the country illegally or enter legally but remain here illegally.

Some may accuse me of gross hyperbole when I say that the government of Mexico uses the US as their penal system, but truth be told, tens of thousands of criminal aliens who come into the US are from Mexico and our federal and state prisons, and local jails warehouse these lawbreakers at the expense of US taxpayers. Not only that, but the US provides an abundance of crime victims for these killers, robbers, rapists and child molesters.

When the United States incarcerates criminal aliens–noncitizens convicted of crimes while in this country legally or illegally–in federal and state prisons and local jails, the federal government bears much of the costs. It pays to incarcerate criminal aliens in federal prisons and reimburses state and local governments for a portion of their costs of incarcerating some, but not all, criminal aliens illegally in the country through the Department of Justice’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program managed by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Some state and local governments have expressed concerns about the impact that criminal aliens have on already overcrowded prisons and jails and that the federal government reimburses them for only a portion of their costs of incarcerating criminal aliens. Congress requested that the General Accounting Office provide information concerning criminal aliens incarcerated at the federal, state, and local level. For the criminal aliens incarcerated, the state and local governments that received reimbursement through SCAAP, only received about 25 percent of the costs .

At the federal level, the number of criminal aliens incarcerated increased from about 42,000 at the end of calendar year 2001 to about 49,000 at the end of calendar year 2004–a 15 percent increase. The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years–about 27 percent. The majority of criminal aliens incarcerated at the end of calendar year 2004 were identified as citizens of Mexico.

It is estimated the federal cost of incarcerating criminal aliens — Bureau of Prison’s cost to incarcerate criminals and reimbursements to state and local governments under SCAAP –totaled approximately $5.8 billion for calendar years 2001 through 2004. BOP’s cost to incarcerate criminal aliens rose from about $950 million in 2001 to about $1.2 billion in 2004–a 14 percent increase.

Federal reimbursements for incarcerating criminal aliens in state prisons and local jails declined from $550 million in 2001 to $280 million in 2004, in a large part due to a reduction in congressional appropriations. At the state level, the 50 states received reimbursement for incarcerating about 77,000 criminal aliens in fiscal year 2002 and 47 states received reimbursement for incarcerating about 74,000 in fiscal year 2003.

For the 5 states incarcerating about 80 percent of these criminal aliens in fiscal year 2003, about 68 percent incarcerated in mid-year 2004 reported that the country of citizenship or country of birth as Mexico, the Dominican Republic, or Cuba. Four of these 5 states spent about $1.6 billion to incarcerate criminal aliens reimbursed through SCAAP during fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Estimates are that the federal government reimbursed these four states about 25 percent or less of the estimated cost to incarcerate these criminal aliens in fiscal years 2002 and 2003.

At the local level, in fiscal year 2002, SCAAP reimbursed about 750 local governments for incarcerating about 138,000 criminal aliens. In fiscal year 2003, SCAAP reimbursed about 700 local governments for about 147,000 criminal aliens, with 5 local jail systems accounting for about 30 percent of these criminal aliens. The 147,000 criminal aliens incarcerated during fiscal year 2003 spent a total of about 8.5 million days in jail. Mexico leads as the country of birth for foreign-born arrestees at these 5 local jails in fiscal year 2003.

It’s estimated that 4 of these 5 local jails spent $390 million in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 to incarcerate criminal aliens and were reimbursed about $73 million through SCAAP. It’s believed that the federal government reimbursed these localities about 25 percent or less of the criminal alien incarceration cost in fiscal years 2002 and 2003.

Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

Monday, May 15, 2006

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: FACT SHEET

If The President & Congress Do Not Address These Concerns, Then The Republicans Will Lose My Vote!

And here’s our rebuttal to tonight’s Presidential Address…

via New Media Alliance:

1. Claim: “Illegal immigrants do the jobs that Americans won’t.”

False: Americans will perform any legal job necessary to support themselves and their families. As an illustration, recently 70 US citizens were dismissed from an Alabama construction site by a foreman who said the dismissal was “because the Mexicans had arrived”. Linda Swopes, who operates Complete Employment Services in Mobile AL said: “I assure you it is not true that Americans don’t want to work. We had been told that 270 jobs might be available, and we could have filled every one of them with men from this area, most of whom lost their jobs because of the hurricane.” The identified Mexican illegal immigrant workers were simply willing to work for less money than were US citizens.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/
20060410-123506-1297r.htm

2. Claim: “Illegal immigrants help the American economy.”

False: Illegal immigrants to the US cost the country at least $10 billion more than they contribute to the economy. The CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) advises that if amnesty is put into place, these costs to the American economy (and the American taxpayer) will triple. The average illegal immigrant family uses $2,700/year more in services than it pays in taxes. In 2002, this amounted to a $10.4 billion drain on the federal budget. Some of the greatest federal costs included: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html

3. Claim: “Illegal immigrants are just hard-working people who want jobs.”

False: The US Justice Department reported that in 2003, alone, 270,000 illegal immigrants had served prison time. The Federation for American Immigration Reform reports: “In March 2000, Congress made public Department of Justice statistics showing that, over the previous five years, the INS had released over 35,000 criminal aliens instead of deporting them. Over 11,000 of those released went on to commit serious crimes, over 1,800 of which were violent ones; including 98 homicides, 142 sexual assaults, and 44 kidnappings. In 2001, thanks to a decision by the Supreme Court, the INS was forced to release into our society over 3,000 criminal aliens who collectively had been convicted of 125 homicides, 387 sex offenses, and 772 assault charges.”

The Federal Bureau of Prisons estimates that fully one-third of current prison populations are comprised of non-citizen illegals.

Islamic terrorists, including Mexicans with terrorist ties, have entered and are continuing to enter the US via our unsecured borders.

The violent MS-13 Salvadoran gangs have illegally immigrated across the US-Mexico border. MS-13 has also vowed to kill local police, Border Patrol agents and US citizen-members of the Minutemen project, within the US.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml?s=ic
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=oid%3A60078
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7244879/site/newsweek/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-05-gang-grows_x.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050328-125306-7868r.htm

4. Claim: “Illegal aliens help keep cost of goods down”

Misleading and false: Although marketplace agricultural products are estimated to be somewhat lower than they would be if US citizens were performing the jobs illegals carry out, the cost to US taxpayers in free services to illegals vastly outweighs any savings to the US consumer. And illegal immigrants are no longer solely operating in agriculture but, have expanded out into multiple industries. In Los Angeles, 49-year old construction worker Michael Williams (jobless for 3 months) said outside of a Home Depot: “You have a lot of illegal aliens here. It takes food off the table.” The spread of illegals into other industries is increasing geometrically.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/
economy/2006-04-10-immigrants-economic-impact_x.htm

5. Claim: “Illegal immigrants are being denied [their] civil rights”

False: Civil rights pertain ONLY to citizens. The Merriam-Webster online Dictionary defines civil-rights as: “The nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially: the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress.” If one is not a citizen of the country, civil rights do not apply.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/civil%20rights

6. Claim: “Illegal immigrants are law-abiding citizens”

False: First and foremost, by the very nature of illegal immigrants being in the country “illegally”, they are neither following nor abiding by US law. Also, illegal immigrants are increasingly using bogus or stolen Social Security numbers. The crime of Identity Fraud being affected by illegal immigrants has become a growing and sever problem. Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) commented: “If the government bothered to look, it could find abundant evidence of illegal aliens gaming our system and the unscrupulous employers who are aiding and abetting them.”

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/14411281.htm

7. Claim: “Illegal immigrants only want to become US citizens”

False: Although many illegals are demanding US citizenship, and to be given special consideration ahead of those who have applied legally, a marked number of Hispanics do not want it. But, they do demand the “same rights” as US citizens. Many Hispanic groups, including (but not limited to) MEChA, the Mexica Movement and LULAC, are supporting and working toward the re-conquest (“reconquista”) of the United States. These groups are, also, becoming increasingly militant.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:zb7zb5AZ1w8J:transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/31/ldt.01.html+Reconquista+movement&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=20&client=firefox-a

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060416-122222-1672r.htm

8. Claim: “Illegal aliens are honest and contribute little to crime”

Misleading: Many are hard working. However, in Los Angeles, alone, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens. “A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal.”

http://www.city-journal.org/html/
14_1_the_illegal_alien.html

9. Claim: “The claim that illegal immigrants drain US services is a myth”

False: From the L.A. Times and Rice University’s Professor Donald Huddle: “Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare.” And as far back as 1997, according to Huddle, the cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer was a net (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $69 Billion.

http://www.freedomalliance.org/
view_article.php?a_id=642

10. Claim: “Illegals do not drive down US workers’ wages”

False: As already presented, illegal immigrants from Mexico are working for far less money than US citizen workers and on a regular basis. An 18 April 2006 article in WSJ by Professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard University George J. Borjas (“For a Few Dollars Less”) quotes Paul Samuelson: “…an increase in supply [of workers] will, other things being equal, tend to depress wage rates.” Although Samuelson’s conclusions were, for years, disputed, recently they have been proving to be accurate.

Borjas writes: “My Harvard colleague Lawrence Katz and I recently examined the impact of the 1980-2000 immigrant influx (and particularly Mexican-origin immigration) for U.S. wages. The results are that, in the short run — holding all other things equal — immigration lowered the wage of native workers, particularly of those workers with the least education. The wage fell by 3% for the average worker and by 8% for high school dropouts.” He further concludes: “These effects imply sizable reductions in annual earnings for low-skill workers. In 2000, the typical high school dropout earned $25,000, so that immigration reduced his earnings by $1,200, even after all capital adjustments take place. Mr. Katz and I also examined how much was due to Mexican immigration. We calculated what the wage effects would have been had there been no Mexican immigration between 1980 and 2000. We found that Mexican immigration, which is predominantly low-skill, accounts for all of the adverse impact of immigration on low-skill natives.” In NRO (National Review Online), Borjas continues with: “In fact, immigration may have depressed the wages of low-skilled workers by 5 to 8 percentage points.”

Note: WSJ article is via “subscription only”.

http://www.nationalreview.com/issue/
borgas200604250622.asp

SAME OLD, SAME OLD

By Michelle Malkin

Here's the White House official speech preview (hat tip: Kathryn Lopez) of the platitudes, non sequiturs, and recycled rhetoric I've been deconstructing the last five years:

On the President’s vision for comprehensive immigration reform:
“We are a Nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We are also a Nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals – America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time. We will fix the problems created by illegal immigration, and we will deliver a system that is secure, orderly, and fair.”

On Border Security:

“Since I became President, we have increased funding for border security by 66 percent, and expanded the Border Patrol from about 9,000 to 12,000 agents. . . .we have apprehended and sent home about six million people entering America illegally.

“Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I am calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border."

On the Importance of a Temporary Worker Program to relieve pressure on the border:

“The reality is that there are many people on the other side of our border who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. They walk across miles of desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country. This creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will not stop. To secure the border effectively we must reduce the numbers of people trying to sneak across."

On enforcing our laws:

“. . . we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees, because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility . . .

“A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law – and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.”

On the President’s opposition to amnesty:

“. . . we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully – and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration."

On assimilation:

“. . . we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one Nation out of many peoples. The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans. Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability to speak and write the English language.”

On the tone of the debate:

“We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say.”

Too little, too late.

BUSH SPEAKS TONIGHT

President Bush will make his address to the nation tonight on the issue of what the politically correct among us refer to as "illegal immigrants" or the "immigration" problem. The "immigrant" word seems to have stuck. It's just a nicer way of saying "gate crasher." The proper phrase is not "anti-immigrant" because these people aren't immigrants. Immigration is a legal procedure, and those who ignore the legalities and just flow across the border in violation of our laws don't earn that label. If these home invaders are immigrants, than we could just as easily apply the same name to an invading army. Call them what they are, and please don't cloak them with the same respect do most of our ancestors who followed the law and waited in line to get here.

By the way ... apparently talk show hosts like me are part of the problem. Over the weekend I read the words of some columnists who made references to "anti-immigrant talk radio." Secondly, instead of "anti-immigrant," what's the matter with the phrase "pro-sovereignty?"

We're really going to have to wait until after Bush's little speech tonight before the real discussion starts, but there are a few points I would sure like for him to cover.

1. We're supposed to have a military capacity in this country to fight two separate wars in two separate areas of the globe at the same time. Now we hear that we don't even have enough troops to put on the Mexican-American border. If we can't stop the Mexicans from invading the U.S., we sure as hell can't stop Kim Jong Il from invading South Korea. Sup wid dat?

2. Does your idea of a path to citizenship put these illegals who have flooded our country ahead of those who have followed the rules and who have gone to our embassies and consulates, filled out the proper paperwork, and then have waited for their return phone call? If so, aren't we, the great country of the rule-of-law, rewarding these people for ignoring those laws?

3. Are you willing to place harsh penalties on American employers who hire illegals? We know that these employers of illegals are huge supporters of the Republican Party. Can you put your oath of office to defend the borders of this country ahead of those campaign contributions?

4. Do you have the courage to tell Vicente Fox that his open support and encouragement of the Mexican invasion is not making him any friends in this country, and that it will no longer be tolerated?

5. Are you willing to take a principled position and stand up to the sure-to-come demands from the left that non-citizen Mexicans and Hispanics be allowed to vote in local elections around the country?

Speaking of El Presidente .... Mexican president Vicente Fox called Bush yesterday to ask if he was militarizing the border. Well, duhhhhh. Pretty nervy guy, that Vicente. Let's see ... the Mexican government is openly encouraging the invasion of the United States by it's low-skilled workers. The Mexican government even prints instructions on how to cross the border, and to avoid being caught once in the US. There are reports -- too many to ignore -- of uniformed Mexican troops appearing along the border to assist Mexicans in getting across, even reports of illegals being ferried across the border in Mexican army troop carriers. And, to top it off, there are reports that uniformed Mexican troops have actually fired on U.S. Border Patrol agents trying to intercept Mexican drug smugglers. In the face of all this .... Vicente Fox calls Bush to ask if he's militarizing the border?

Fox has a lot at stake here. Mexico is a country rich in natural resources and people. There is no reason Mexico can't be a thriving economic power unto itself -- no reason, that is, except for the rampant corruption throughout the Mexican government. The illegals streaming across the border into the U.S. give Fox relief on at least two fronts. One, they relieve the pressure for reform that could lead to jobs and opportunities in Mexico. Two, the illegal invaders represent about a $20 billion per year boost to the Mexican economy. That's "free," if you will, money just flowing into Mexico via wire transfers from the gate crashers living and working in the U.S. Oh ... and by the way ... that's $20 billion that's not being spent here to boost our economy.

Bush will take the position tonight that there is just no practical way that we can deport the 12 million illegal Mexican and Hispanic aliens now in this country. Fine .. I agree. We can't deport them. Logistically, it would be a nightmare and would most likely result in violence and riots in many American cities. We can, though, yank out the welcome mat. I've gone through this on the air and in the Nuze before, but just in case the president's speech writers wanted to take a look at my notes before they polished up Bush's remarks, (yeah ... right) ... here's just how to reverse the flow:

1. Harsh .. to the draconian level .. penalties against any employer who knowing hires any workers who are not in this country legally.

2. Punishment - though milder - of any employers who hire illegals because they didn't conduct due diligence in the hiring process.

3. Change the law to deny citizenship to children born to a woman who is in this country illegally.

4. No children of illegals in American government schools.

5. Deny all social welfare benefits to anyone who is in this country illegally with the one exception of life-saving medical care.

6. Confiscate a substantial portion of the monies earned in this country by illegal immigrants. We confiscate drug money because it was earned illegally, so why can't we confiscate the money earned by illegals? I'm not saying take it all. Leave them enough to buy some food and get a bus ticket to Matamoras.

Does all this sound harsh? Sorry ... I suppose it is ... but these people are criminals. They are NOT, as their signs proclaim, America. The idea here is to make them feel as unwelcome here as we possibly can. Yank out the welcome mat from under their feet. Make them prefer life in their own country to a life of deprivation here.

There's a letter making the Internet rounds. It was a letter to the editor of a newspaper in North Carolina, but I've been unable to track it down. Whoever wrote it ... it's brilliant. Here you go:

To the Editor:

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the U.S. might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and once here, to stay indefinitely.

Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.

Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your home you insist that I leave. But, I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors: I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest ... except for that part where I broke into your house.

"According to the protestors, not only must you let me stay, you must add me to your family's insurance plan and provide other benefits for me and my family. My husband will do your yard work because he too is hard-working and honest ... except for that breaking in thing.

"If you try to call the police or force me out I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my right to be here. It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm hard-working and honest .... ummmmm .... except for that breaking in thing.

"Besides. What a deal it is for me! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness, prejudice and being anti-housebreaker!

Did I miss anything? Does this sound reasonable to you? If it does, grab a sign and go picket something. If this sounds insane to you call your senators and enlighten them because they are stumbling in the darkness right now and really need your help.

(Name? _______________)

Well ... let's see what Bush has in store for us tonight. I'm virtually certain he is going to make the case for the 12 million illegals in this country staying. Add that to the past amnesties and we'll have about 30 million or so Mexicans and Hispanics in this country who came here illegally and later had their behavior cleansed for the sake of politics.

TOO LITTLE TOO LATE

By Michelle Malkin

Here we go again.

President Bush is continuing the homeland security dog-and-pony charade in his quest to deliver a massive "guest worker"/amnesty plan to the open-borders lobby. A few weeks ago, Bush's Department of Homeland Security put on a bogus performance of Get Tough Theater with a series of politically timed immigration raids...which, as I predicted, simply resulted in more catch and release of illegal aliens nationwide.

This new last-minute stunt to sprinkle National Guard troops on the border--temporarily, of course, to appease Mexican President Vicente Fox--is more transparent than the Scotch tape used to hold together our dilapidated border fences. (That's only a slight exaggeration.)

For all the new tough talk, these additional troops will be barred from actually doing what needs to be done: guarding the border. President Bush is already bowing and scraping to Mexico over the plan before he's even officially announced it. More details via WaPo:

Officials suggested their mission would be to play a supporting role by providing intelligence, training, transportation, construction and other functions, while leaving the actual guarding of the 2,000-mile line separating the United States and Mexico to the Border Patrol. The National Guard would be a stopgap force until the federal government could hire civilian contractors to take over administrative and support functions from the Border Patrol, freeing more agents to actually hunt for immigrants slipping into the country.

Hold up. It's been nearly five years since the Sept. 11 attacks. It's taken the Bush administration this long to acknowledge the need to hire more civilian contractors to relieve the Border Patrol of administrative and support functions?

Only now, on the day the Senate revisits his favored, faltering pet proposals for mass amnesty, does he find it important enough to send a show of military non-force down to the border--a show that was immediately emasculated to satisfy the "American is a continent, not a country" crowd.

White House spokeswoman Maria Tamburri said Bush made clear to Fox that "the United States considered Mexico a friend and that what is being considered is not militarization of the border, but support of border capabilities on a temporary basis by the National Guard."

The proper White House response to Fox should have been: If it's good enough for your southern border, it's good enough for ours.

Oh, and before the open-borders radicals start arguing that there are legal restrictions against National Guardsmen patrolling the border, please note: The few, thin numbers of Guardsmen who are at the border now in fact carry out some of these functions:

Soldiers scout the border from inside the trucks looking for illegal aliens crossing the border into the United States at night. They call the Border Patrol when they have them in sight and track them until they are able to come in and apprehend them or push them back into their own boundaries.
Watching and waiting for threats to come across the border may be tedious, but the Guardsmen on patrol are always patient and alert. After calling in a group of aliens and the Border Patrol responds, the Soldiers move on and look for the next group.

When surveying illegal aliens in the field, they pay attention to whether they are carrying bags or not. They refer to some of these individuals as “mules” when they come through with drugs in homemade rucksacks. Up to 80 pounds of marijuana are carried on an illegal alien’s back, according to Counterdrug officials here. Once they are aware they have been spotted, they may try to ditch the sacks.